A thirty-two year old homeschool graduate who once promised her mother she didn't need to learn grammar because she'd never be an author is hopelessly a writer at heart. I'm a Christian who loves to ask thoughtful questions, and who finds thought-provoking material in unlikely sources. A lady in waiting, I'm the oldest of six children still living at home, pursuing the efficient acquisition of knowledge through books and practice.

Thursday, September 15, 2011

One would think that the root word of ‘gravity’ is related to that hole we dig in the ground and put coffins into, commonly called a grave. Both bring the sense of “down.” And how can one miss the weight of solemn sorrow that is associated with burying a human being in the dirt? But it turns out that etymologists have two histories for the word grave, a sort of convergent evolution: one in the sense of gravity, going back to the Proto Indo-European *gru and another in the sense of that hole in the ground, sending us back to *ghrebh. Nearly as fascinating is the study of ‘crave’ and ‘craven.’

Grave (*gru) – is an adjective, arriving in English through the French, who received it from the Latin for “weighty, serious, heavy, grievous, oppressive.” The PIE base often contains the notion of strength or force along with weight. This is the root that ‘gravity’ traces back to.

Grave (*ghrebh) – is a noun, in the Old English and Old High German meaning much the same as it does today. The Old Norse used its relative for ‘cave.’ Ultimately, the definition is derived from a sense of “to dig, to scratch, to scrape.”

Etymonline.com adds some trivia: “From Middle Ages to 17c., [graves] were temporary, crudely marked repositories from which the bones were removed to ossuaries after some years and the grave used for a fresh burial.”

Grief – a word appearing in English since the 13th century, meaning “hardship, suffering, pain, bodily affliction” – especially one undeserved, as in the Old French grief “wrong, grievance, injustice, misfortune, calamity.”

Grievance – from circa A.D. 1300 the Old French grievance “harm, injury, misfortune, trouble, suffering.” This word has referred to the cause of such a condition since the late 15th century.

Grievous – came with the family of words to English around A.D. 1300, once again from the Old French. Grevos meaning “heavy, hard, toilsome.”

-graphy – “process of writing or recording” or “a writing, recording, or description.” From the Greek meaning first “to draw” and then “to express by written characters”: originally, “to scrape, scratch (on clay tablets with a stylus).”

Gravel – n. “sand.” Related to the Modern French greve which refers to the seashore or sand. Possibly from the Celtic *gravo, and perhaps ultimately from PIE *ghreu – “to rub, grind.”

Grind – a verb dating back to the Old English where it was a class III strong verb: past tense grand, past participle grunden. See PIE *ghrendh also attested in Latin frendere “to gnash the teeth” and Greek khondros “corn, grain” or Lithuanian grendu “to scrape, scratch.”

And now on to the “c” words, beginning with one mentioned in a definition above:

Craven – was used fascinatingly by JRR Tolkien in Lord of the Rings – consider all the nuance he was trying to communicate when he described a character’s words as “craven.” This adjective comes from the French cravant, Old French crevante “defeated” from the Latin crepare “to crack, creak.” It was most likely affected by ‘crave’ (though previously unrelated) to move from “defeated” to “cowardly” as long ago as A.D. 1400. Some etymologists suggest that the word kept a hold on the earlier definition by justifying the shift to modern “cowardly” as a result of “confessing oneself defeated.”

Crave – comes from the North Germanic *krabojan “ask, implore, and especially demand by right. The current sense “to long for” is as old as A.D. 1400, probably developed through the intermediate usage of “to ask very earnestly” in the 1300’s. Through the mutual base sense of “power”, ‘crave’ may be related to ‘craft.’

Craft – a noun meaning “power, physical strength, might” especially in the older occurrences (see Proto-Germanic *krab-/*kraf- bases) but expanded in Old English to include “skill, art, science, and talent.” These latter led to the meaning “trade, handicraft, calling.”

Craft – Interestingly, the verb form was obsolete for about 300 years, originally meaning “to exercise a craft, build” in the Old English, and revived in the United States especially, beginning in the 1950’s.

Craft – used as a noun for “small boat” first in the 1670’s. May have come to use via either the trade the small boats engaged in or the seamanship required to man the vessels.

Sunday, September 04, 2011

Media (books and movies) should not be censored. Original authors may censor their own works, in a sense, by omitting immoral content. Should this resolution be adopted, there would be no fast-forwarding unwanted scenes in movies. Ideally there would be no need to fast forward, since creators of media would not put inappropriate things in their works. But this highlights a clash of values, where the artist and consumer may not agree on what is appropriate. Refusing censorship increases freedom. As a consumer, you have the freedom to reject a whole work – but you should not take someone else’s work and chop it up to use for your own ends. This applies market pressure on producers to only present works whose content is not morally objectionable. Ratings could be helpful in deciding ahead of time whether to watch a movie or read a book. Or ratings could be a form of censorship, especially as the government limits audiences based on ratings. Governments having the right to censor gives them too much power over the education of the populace. Movie ratings of R and NC-17 have legal restrictions associated with them. The government also controls who is sold “mature” materials. Does it control who views them? Is there a legal penalty for, say, parents letting their children view NC-17 films? Individuals are welcome to censor for themselves, or for children, so long as they censor in whole. Why is censorship a bad thing? Objectionable content and explicit material sometimes get an idea across in the way the creator thinks is best or most powerful. Explicit material negatives may outweigh the positives of being exposed to a new idea, for some consumers. Also media tends to be complex with multiple subpoints versus one whole idea – so you may only be censoring a subpoint by fast forwarding one scene. How do we judge criteria for including (whether the idea is important enough to be presented via explicit material)? If the consumer is to make his own judgment call, how can he before viewing the piece and seeing how the scene ties in with the entirety?

Proverbs says*: the righteous foresee danger and take precautions. The fool goes on and suffers the harm, so we ought to prepare to live in third world conditions. Third world conditions are defined as being without running water, electricity, plumbing, or transportation systems (for some examples). The reason we should be ready is to survive and to help others survive. We need to plan, to figure out what will be the most effective means of survival. Stockpiling food is probably not a good long-term strategy. Stock-piling guns so we can take food from other people or to hunt for more food was suggested, arguing that there is a concentration of food in the city that would not quickly run out. But there is a difficulty of transporting food from where found and grown to where people are gathered in cities. So maybe we should spread out, buy several acres and start a commune. It would need to be protected well, grow food, raise goats and chickens. And if the goal is survival, we might want to make sure that the members have skills needed to contribute to the commune (and exclude those who wouldn’t be assets). Is this a realistic foreseen danger, that our country will suffer third world conditions? Why should we believe that the prophets foreseeing this danger are righteous (or prudent as in the verse) and that we ought to follow their “wisdom”? Reasons for suspecting upcoming danger are: specialization of skills, and the direction of our economy. Is prevention possibly more important than preparation, and how should we balance these in priority with limited time? Are we putting too much emphasis on one proverb or teaching? Is not the proverb referring to an imminent danger seen just ahead – not a risk of possible danger? How would we do this and store up treasure in heaven? There are other benefits of preparing skills that could be useful even if the danger does not come to pass. It would be unwise to not prepare at all. What about “seeking first the kingdom of God” because our heavenly Father knows our needs? The ability to produce necessities could help neighbors, whom we are commanded to love.

*Proverbs 27:12 (NLT, closest I could find to what was quoted in the resolution) says: “A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions. The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.”

A healthy marriage is one that fights… WELL. Fighting well is defined as with respect but no violence and without avoiding the conflict. Never fighting is bad. An assumption was made that there will be internalization of an offense, leading to growing bitterness, if it is not addressed between them. The other extreme is that of violence, doing injury to one another. A good marriage is in the middle, acknowledging and dealing with disagreement as a couple. If the wife is obedient, isn’t there no fighting? How does fighting well contribute to the purpose of marriage? If conflict exists, married couples must deal with it well. But is the existence of conflict a sign of a good marriage? How frequently should conflict arise to prove a good marriage? Is fighting the best way to deal with it? Is conflict sinful? The debaters speaking seemed frequently to assume that conflicts arose when one person sinned against another, but are there other reasons for conflict? Is fighting sinful? When you fight you have to work through a disagreement. Repentance (of sin if there was sin causing the conflict) is more important than fighting. Why doesn’t the wife just submit as a way of dealing with it? A wife should sharpen her husband (as opposed to always being silent and never expressing a dissenting opinion). An example was given of a polygamous marriage in which one wife is sharpening her husband because that is the sort of relationship they have, but the other wives are to submit quietly and contribute to the household (think Jacob and his four wives, Rachel being the one he really wanted the emotional relationship with). Assuming there is conflict, fighting badly and avoiding the conflict would not, either one, be productive responses. A good marriage is one that communicates, that works as a team, and those virtues are hindered by the bad extremes of dealing with conflict. A couple should decide in conference whether an issue is worth fighting about, and if not, let it go. Allowing bitterness to grow (through avoiding conflict or not) is sinful. It is a spouse’s spiritual duty as a Christian ‘brother’ to confront sin. But it is less important to fight about non-sin.

Entertainment is wrong. Entertainment defined as anything you do simply for pleasure or fun. If you have more purposes, it is not entertainment. Entertainment has unintended benefits. Why would it be wrong? It distracts from beneficial behavior. It causes people to ignore good works. It selfishly seeks gratification. Laziness is bad. Could we just say that entertainment shouldn’t be placed above something more beneficial? Should people always do the most beneficial thing? Being conscious of your motives is essential. Are there other restrictions on fun or pleasure besides motives – extravagance of spending, content, frequency? There is such a thing as Christian pleasure. We are not choosing between something fun and some good work, but good works that can also be fun – or at least bring us pleasure as we honor God with our lives. Friendship is impoverished when people cannot connect on pleasures and interests. Does this resolution lead to justifying entertainment by adding other motives? Or do we add entertainment to other central motives so that we get enough fun in?

In the following resolution, ‘Church’ is defined as the assembling of Christians as described in the New Testament. Because Pigfests are so much like Church, we should let women be silent. (This was my resolution, and as a female, I refused to say anything more after this for fifteen minutes. A few women continued to contribute, but the debate was mostly carried by the men present.) Pigfests are not enough like Church, in that they are not claiming to be church; only then could rules about Church apply. Churches, definitionally, have leadership structures that Pigfests lack. Is women’s silence useful for something in particular? (aftera pause in conversation) Things get decided faster! The New Testament says that where two or more believers are gathered, that is Church. So if Christians are driving in a car, the women shouldn’t talk? If only two Christian women are present there would be no talking? That would make for less gossip (though men gossip also). Is a Pigfest more like church than those (in car, 2 women) gatherings? New Testament Church was a gathering devoted to doctrine, teaching, and reading the Word of God. New Testament church gathered for edification (one of the stated purposes for Pigfests). New Testament Church is for worship. Where is the verse about women being silent? There is a scarcity of conversation when men who are used to women participating are faced with women being silent. 1 Corinthians 14:34 was read: “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; butthey areto be submissive, as the law also says.” (NKJV)/“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.” (NIV) The verses assume that women are present, listening. A husband or father can benefit in at least two ways from the “asking at home” in verse 35: 1) He needs to pay extra attention to be able to answer, 2) The man has the responsibility to participate at Church, whereas the woman just observes and has a more objective perspective. These two perspectives are joined at home through the personal interaction with the women who saved up questions and thoughts. How do unmarried women get their questions answered? (In jest, it was suggested that unmarried women did not belong at church and should be out finding husbands instead.) Unmarried women can learn from fathers. Most “churches” in the United States let women speak. Does silence mean what we think? Why ‘let’? Corinthians also says a few chapters before that women praying and prophesying in Church should have their heads covered, allowing speaking in some circumstances. Both passages deal with subjection and are perhaps driving at a deeper concept that would be applicable at Pigfests.

Churches should draft all attendees to serve in preschool nursery care during service. (My summary is not based on notes for this one, but on memory of segments caught while I was preparing dinner in the adjacent room.) Assumes churches have nurseries. Give visitors a few weeks before requiring them to serve. Should service be determined by gifting, desire, request of elders/deacons, or by mandatory rule? What are the dangers of having someone who is not a Christian or who knows nothing about taking care of children serving in those ministries? Why are parents often expected to serve when they’re the most burnt out? Specifically mentioned was the class of empty-nesters and older people who could be a help to young parents. Parents need a break from children. Why this ministry above others? Evangelizing children is so important because you are so much more likely to get a conversion from people before they reach adulthood. And the kids are ready to be learning truths about God and stories from the Bible that will benefit them their whole lives. But is that what Church is for? The same people tend to serve in many ministries and get burnt out, but a draft would ensure that those accustomed to coming to church as only consumers would contribute. (Again, I apologize for not having more detailed notes.)

Fasting is bribing God to do what you want Him to do. Does it always work – that God gives us what we want when we fast? The Bible does say, of fasting, that God rewards what is done in secret. But that reward might not be granting what we ask. Bribery is wrong when it perverts justice. Fasting is different from prayer. It puts us in the mindset or mood to accept God’s will. But people in the Bible initiate fasting when they really want something (example of Esther). Are there other motives than asking God for something? Should we fast merely to be open to find what God’s will is? The act of fasting, apart from God “answering” in some way, practices self-denial and being open. The hunger is a reminder that we are hungering for other things. It helps us remember to pray, to practice for or relate to famine and starvation in the world. Jesus talked about praying in secret and fasting in secret, not seeking the praise of men. Jesus’ disciples did not fast, Jesus said, because they had the bridegroom with them. So fasting is an appropriate response when separated, a sort of mourning. Is Jesus with us now? Matthew 6 contains Jesus’ teaching on fasting. Feasting is the opposite of fasting. Jesus also said that some demons came out by prayer and fasting. Why did Jesus fast for 40 days? Does the Old Testament Law have instructions for fasting, especially why? Was there some tradition of fasting when separated from a bridegroom? Husbands and wives, in 1 Corinthians 7, are allowed to be separate from each other only for a time of fasting.

Premarital sex is not wrong; you just have to marry the person. Is marriage, then, to be seen as a penalty? Paying the dowry was also required by the Old Testament law. Fornication is often forbidden in the Bible. The Hebrew and Greek words translated fornication are mostly associated with harlotry, or descriptions of sexual immorality or sin which would include the other sins listed in the Old Testament Law: incest, homosexuality, beastiality, rape, and adultery. Is a male paying for dinner sufficient payment for relations to be considered prostitution? If the woman cooks a man dinner, is she paying him? What is the penalty in the Mosaic Law for visiting a prostitute? Is almost barely permissible really “ok”? What if the woman doesn’t want to marry the man? Are they then sinning? If the father refused, in the Old Testament, they didn’t have to marry. It is not beneficial to prove that unwise things (as being debated: premarital sex) aren’t sinful. Would the couple be sinning if they repeatedly had sex before they were married? Is there a time limit before they must marry? What is the impact of telling people they’re sinners if they aren’t sinning before God? There are positive instructions in the Bible to keep our bodies pure, not prostituting them. Women, at least, are also told to be chaste – and what is the definition for that? The Old Testament allowed a man to annul his marriage if he discovered that the woman he married was not pure – not a virgin. Is it a fair argument that because the Mosaic Law does not treat premarital sex with the same consequence (death) as other sexual sins, that it is not immoral or sinful? The law about requiring a couple to marry is a protection for a woman, who gets one chance to choose whom she marries. It is better, Paul said, to marry than to burn – not to give in to the burning and then get married. What are we doing to teens who engage in this behavior but are not encouraged to marry?

*A Pigfest is 15 minutes long, and I am glad that such a topic cannot be thoroughly explored in that time. Pigfest topics often spur further conversation, study, and debate after the party has ended. I am aware of many such discussions and investigations following this particular resolution. In the interest of spurring people on to holiness, I am adding some notes that were not covered in the debate. 1) It is almost impossible for premarital sex to occur without sinning in some other way – especially in dishonoring parents. 2) If Jesus’ relationship with the Church is to be well-pictured by weddings and marriages of Christians, then there will be abstinence until marriage. Abstinence also accords with the way God instituted marriage. 3) As our ceremony and vows are not described in biblical accounts of weddings, it is hard to determine what constitutes a marriage before God. However, the act of intercourse, it is made clear by the law in question, is not sufficient to make one married. 4) The biblical understanding of harlotry comprised more than our modern understanding of prostitutes for hire; it very likely included all premarital sex. 5) Christian virtue calls for purity, self-control, fleeing youthful lusts. 6) Marriage that is supposed to be a life-long commitment, recognizing submission as ordained by God – not governed by force or passion – is not starting out on a good foot if it is begun in insubordination to parents, giving in to lusts, and letting self control rather than be controlled. 7) We ought to hold Christians to the high standard of God, and in the New Testament era, to exercise church discipline on those unrepentant about their sin – so long as we identify sin for what it is. 8) Christians should be clear on the source of their understanding of what constitutes sin.

Betrothal should last at least one year consisting of spending a lot of supervised time with no physical intimacy. Why so long? Can you back out of a betrothal? Parents would be more comfortable giving their child in marriage after such a year. In that year a couple could learn about conflict resolution and be more mature about their relationship. The goal would be less divorce, discovering compatibility. Pre-arranged marriages (which had basically no interaction before the wedding) also have less divorce and are more mature, since they start with a commitment to work through the marriage. Short engagements save you from temptation. Should we be saved from temptations? Long engagements enable you to save money for a wedding. It is possible (preferable?) to know people well before you get engaged so that you wouldn’t need a year-long betrothal to get to know them. Shouldn’t Christians just be able to have a good marriage with anyone else who is a Christian? Why do we need all these conditions and preparations? (For example, arranged marriages work in many cultures.) Parents know their kids well. Who better to decide whom they should marry? God might know better. It would be beneficial, in the proposed betrothal situation, to have that support and accountability that comes from the supervision. But wouldn’t such support and accountability be just as useful if it were instituted at the beginning of a marriage? Should community help (not supervision) end at the wedding? Church discipline should be an option for divorce or marital problems, a further example of accountability after the wedding. There is value in a vow. Following people with church discipline (the only way to effectively do it in this age of church choice and denominations) can get you sued. Do the right thing anyway; help couples to have a good relationship and hold them accountable for sin. A show of hands revealed that there was almost unanimous support present for short engagements. When people get married for love, then the ‘butterflies’ go away and they don’t feel like being married any more. (Would the butterflies go away because of the year-long highly supervised, get to know each other very well betrothal?) Some husbands ‘testified’ that the butterflies haven’t gone away. Awwww….

Gluttony is one of the most prevalent and least talked about sins in America. The silence is surprising given the number of health problems related to gluttony. Gluttony is defined as desirous of food to the point where you put it above God. How would it be put above God? Testimony was reported of one whose “soul reached out to eating food,” that it was a focus of his life. If gluttony was so prevalent, more people would be 400 pounds. But there can be gluttony even in a culture with much higher risks of suffering starvation. Gluttons desire to eat – and they aren’t picky about eating good food; in this way as in other ways, it is similar to drunkenness. It is, however, harder to tell when a person is being gluttonous. Obesity or lack thereof is not proof of gluttony – or of not being a glutton. It is not gluttonous to occasionally, at feasts (think Thanksgiving), eat too much. Why does our culture address it – when it does – as a health issue or a corporate issue instead of as sin? The main verses addressing gluttony were found and read, particularly those in Deuteronomy and Proverbs. Bulimia – partaking without consequences of nourishment – might be related to gluttony, though it is likely associated with other mental health (spiritual?) issues more. If someone struggles with gluttony, it should be treated as sin – and deliverance should be sought by acknowledging it to be sin.